Discussion Title: Are the Milankovitch Cycles major causes of climate change?

1. The Milankovitch Cycles are major causes of climate change.
1.1. Con: The variations of Milankovitch cycles aren't large enough to explain the recent spike in global temperature.
1.1.1. Pro: [Satellites](http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycle) have been monitoring the Sun since the 1970s — when the fastest warming has been taking place — and the brightening isn't there.
1.1.2. Pro: Science shows that we now have a massive [human impact](https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2018/04/13/climate-change-or-global-warming-three-reasons-not-to-be-distracted-by-the-name-game/#3354e40b5088) on top of the naturally-varying climate system.
1.1.3. Pro: The CO2 content of the atmosphere has deviated from the natural [cycle](http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle).
1.1.4. Con: This is subjective; perhaps the cycles develop to encompass larger changes as the earth expands and develops. Either way, it is supposition.
1.2. Con: Anthropogenic climate change is much faster. We warm the Earth in 100 years as it naturally happens in 41000 years.
1.2.1. Pro: Several reports suggest that manmade warming could even accelerate in the next 10 years.
1.3. Pro: The sun is the major influence on climate.
1.3.1. Con: The discussion is about climate change and the Sun's influence on climate change depends on the time frame. Over the course of a solar cycle, the Sun has a small influence on the climate and over 100s millions of years, the gradual warming of the Sun, has a larger influence. However, over the last million years the Sun has had little or no influence. The Milankovitch cycle then man-made CO2 are the major cause of climate change.
1.3.2. Con: Carbon dioxide is the predominant influence on climate. The Sun itself does not change very drastically and insolation changes are more influential, though mainly amplified by CO2.
1.3.2.1. Pro: Most climate scientists and institutions seem to agree that Carbon dioxide is the predominant influence on climate, including [NASA](https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/).
1.3.2.2. Con: The sun goes through cycles that have a large impact on earth's climate \[[Solar Maximum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum)\].
1.3.3. Con: Sun itself does not cause climate change.
1.3.3.1. Con: [Fluctuation](https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html) in solar activity can have a tangible impact on the climate.
1.3.3.1.1. Pro: According to the [research](https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html), strong fluctuations could explain past climate on Earth.
1.3.3.1.2. Con: The article you quote actually confirms human-induced global warming: "According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change."
1.3.3.1.2.1. Con: The two are not mutually exclusive. Human-induced global warming can be real but its impact could be considered less clear, as well as significant as fluctuation in solar activity also has an impact.
1.3.3.1.3. Con: The 11-year solar cycles cannot explain the seen change in global temperature, neither in scale nor longevity.
1.3.3.1.3.1. Pro: The solar output of the sun has been [decreasing](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm), yet the mean global temperature has been rising.
1.3.3.1.4. Pro: If the output of the sun's solar intensity were to increase significantly, the global mean temperature would in fact increase over a longer period of time.
1.4. Con: The cycles [change](http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm) over thousands of years.
1.5. Con: Milankovitch forcing is currently low, and could not explain the current climate change. Milankovitch cycles have driven past climatic change, when the forcing was higher, but the cycles are highly predictable.
1.6. Pro: For the past 800,000 years, the Earth has moved from glacial to inter-glacial periods consistently in line with the periods of the Milankovitch cycles.
1.6.1. Con: The climate change happening now has occurred over a much shorter timescale and on a much larger scale than that recorded in line with the Milankovitch cycles and glacial/interglacial periods, suggesting that the cause of the current climate change is unrelated.
1.6.1.1. Pro: During the last ten Milankovitch cycles, the shift from glacial to interglacial periods lasted for around 10 000 years, during which the temperature increased at a rate around 20 times slower than the current rate of temperature increase.
1.7. Con: The correlation is not precise and could be coincidence.
1.7.1. Pro: It should be proved by scientific evidence
1.7.1.1. Con: Not everything can be proved by science.
1.7.1.1.1. Con: Scientific method is the only method that we have to understand society since it attempts to [minimize the influence of bias](https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method9.htm) or prejudice in the experimenter., therefore it should be respected.